Calvin Beddoe

@firstphas3 @politics8ntEZ @PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia I suppose I’m just not an individualist

@CalvinBeddoe @politics8ntEZ @PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia i rest easy regardless of the polls, that’s the difference.

Reds believe "Well, if everyone pushed Red, we'd all be fine. Why wouldn't you pick Red?" Whereas Blues believe, "Someone else will pick Blue. So, in order to ensure everyone lives, we have to pick Blue." One option kills people. One option does not. It's simple. Pick Blue.

@firstphas3 @politics8ntEZ @PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia Well, I suppose that’s what makes us different. I don’t think red button pushers are, which is why I press blue. If the polls are any indication, I rest easy

@CalvinBeddoe @politics8ntEZ @PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia you’re a lost cause

@politics8ntEZ @firstphas3 @PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia Okay sure. If every person on the planet was either drunk or sober, and they all needed to get home at the same time, it would be morally wrong not for sober people to drive the drunk people home.

@CalvinBeddoe @firstphas3 @PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia Do you spend your evenings outside of bars to give drunk people rides home? If not then anyone they kill is your fault. Same logic. You have a choice.

@PatrickVogelius @firstphas3 @XenoTrivia By legal standards it’s involuntary manslaughter

@CalvinBeddoe @firstphas3 @XenoTrivia Still not killing them. Stick to correct neutral terminology: Survive/not survive.

@firstphas3 @PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia Two people would have to vote blue to make up for your red vote. That is on you, whether you like it or not. You made it harder for blue to win.

@CalvinBeddoe @PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia unless reds win by a singular vote, then i bare zero responsibility.

@firstphas3 @PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia Yes. Killing them is still bad and in some small way still your fault

@CalvinBeddoe @PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia “retards will pick blue so you must too”

@nikolasavila06 @YuletideFrost Not zero sum. Your red press makes it more likely blues will lose and die. That’s moral culpability.

essentially, yea

@PatrickVogelius @XenoTrivia I mean that’s just logically not true. This is zero sum. If you pick red, the threshold to save everyone gets slightly higher. We also have to account for the human factor. People are going to pick blue for any number of reasons that you can’t know.

@XenoTrivia No one is killing anyone. It's a matter of *survival*. Pressing red is guaranteed survival. By pressing red you're not preventing anyone from also pressing red. You're also not putting anyone in a position where they must risk their life in order to save you. Press red.

@BeltaWolf @Wambulogy The problem here is that this is zero sum. By picking red, you are actively, not passively, increasing the odds that everyone who picked blue will die. Unless your underlying assumption is no one will pick red, you are pushing blues to their doom.

In a fantasy world people would pick blue, in the real world you have to put trust into everyone, if someone said to me my kid has to take a blue pill or a red one where the blue one would be a 50% chance of surviving or the red one which is 100% of surviving, I'm picking the red one, i dont care what other people pick, im making sure my kids are 100% ok and for that reason I'd take the red one so I can guarantee myself still being around for them, same case goes for the buttons, I dont care what anyone presses, I want my kids to guarantee live and I will live along side them, its up to you if you want to take that risk with this world, and youve seen how fucked up it is, also if you also want your kids to press blue with a chance of knowing they could die, thats fucked up

I keep seeing folks being like "If EVERYONE picks Red, then everyone survives." But like.. the same is true for everyone picking Blue, right? The majority picking blue prevents ANY death.

@sircalebhammer I could imagine someone like Hasan Piker if you want specifically political pods. Maybe Adam Friedland. Maybe David Pakman, or Pod Save America. Sam Seder is a classic.

Friends- I need help. I keep getting TV/podcast invites from creators/channels that lean right, or are clearly on the right. I have NO issues with that- I’ll talk to anyone. But I NEED some left wing creators/channels to chat with for balance before I accept more. HELP!!!

@kevinwildes Seahawks, Rams, Giants, Texans, Broncos

rules: 1. you wager your life savings (or whatever - just trying to reduce fave team bias) 2. you get to pick 5 NFL teams 3. you have a five year window 4. if one team wins the SB - you 10X your money What teams are you choosing?

@IISwitchII Okay yeah but we played a 4 game series against the most demonic club in the AL. It is what it is

Mariners are fourth in runs scored. Mariners are second in home runs. Mariners are fourth in wRC+. Mariners are sixth in xwOBA. Cal Raleigh, Julio Rodriguez, Josh Naylor combined to go 3-45 with 19 strikeouts and 1 XBH.

@TyHend92 @CorbinSmithNFL Let’s make it simple: what if your taxes were raised something along the lines of 10%, but you no longer had to pay for your employees’ health insurance? Or your own?

The social contract doesn’t work when the people paying the bulk share don’t trust the people spending their money and when we have so many people abusing the system. We all know people who receive some type of welfare and are fully capable of not relying on it. Of course it impacts peoples’ decisions, this isn’t 50+ years ago. I own a business and make X per year employing quite a few people with good paying jobs. I’m nearing a level where sometimes it sounds so much easier just to go work in my previous career and make a solid six figures without dealing with the sleepless nights and constant stress. I put up with it because the income is worth it, but if I was taxed another 10-20%, it would heavily weigh on my decision to continue or I’d just pass the costs on to my customers which would defeat the purpose of the tax increase. I’m having these same conversations with all of my friends who own businesses.

I've never been rich and I never will be. But why should someone who has been successful and earned more money have to pay a higher percentage? That seems quite unfair.

@TyHend92 @CorbinSmithNFL You are acting as though poor people don’t also have to make sacrifices. I don’t think you are an ill meaning person, but people aren’t always poor just because they are lazy.

Idk man, then it comes down to whose moral compass are others being subject to & why do they get to decide how others’ money is spent when everyone has the ability to earn more money. Someone might think a rich person should subsidize strangers’ healthcare, doesn’t mean they have to agree. Another problem I have is that largely, many of the people making these decisions have never been in the position of the people they’re regulating. It’s easy to tell others to give up more when you have nothing to lose yourself and haven’t made the same sacrifices that they did.

@TyHend92 @CorbinSmithNFL Punitive taxes do not discourage success. That is a lie. The USA’s highest growth period ever occurred in a high top tax bracket environment. You are asking for unlimited profit to come with absolutely no increased responsibility. Thats not the social contract and never has been.

@CalvinBeddoe @CorbinSmithNFL Wealth inequality is better addressed by economic growth & opportunity, not punitive taxes that discourage success. At a certain point, it isn’t worth it to provide goods/services when you could just work for marginally lower pay, but with way less stress & responsibilities.

@TyHend92 @CorbinSmithNFL In what world do you live that everyone has the opportunity to advance themselves? Most jobs that make enough to afford to buy a home or have a kid literally require a degree plus an unpaid internship. Those are not available to everyone.

@CalvinBeddoe @CorbinSmithNFL It’s a symbiotic relationship. Everyone provides value, some more so than others. The main key is ensuring everyone has the opportunity to advance themselves, which we do in the US. Anyone who says otherwise is making excuses, barring any major physical or mental restrictions.

@TyHend92 @CorbinSmithNFL If you command that type of wealth, you should have a higher obligation to benefit your community. Ignoring that is how you end up losing jobs in the Midwest to offshoring. If the wealthy won’t voluntarily do things for the good of community, they must be compelled through taxes

@CalvinBeddoe @CorbinSmithNFL How someone comes into ownership of a business or whether they’re an owner or operator is irrelevant if they’re providing the same goods/services. Many wealthy owners started out by taking huge risks & working their asses off as operators earlier in their entrepreneurial journey.

@TyHend92 @CorbinSmithNFL In addition, what you are describing is an owner operator. I think there is a distinction of the owner actually does productive work. It’s easier to make money if you have money, so I don’t honestly respect the title of “owner” if all you do is own the company.

@TyHend92 @CorbinSmithNFL On top of that, the owner still relies on customers being able to afford their goods. This pool will shrink if wealth inequality is not addressed.

@TyHend92 @CorbinSmithNFL I think acknowledging the problem and prescribing the solution are two different things. I do not know the exact amount, but I do know that wealth inequality will eventually eat into the profits of the wealthy as people in the middle stop being able to afford things

@CalvinBeddoe @CorbinSmithNFL What’s the income cut-off for who can comfortably afford things and who gets to decide those amounts? Say two people drive the same distance to work and have the same cars. One makes 50k/yr, the other 100k. Should they pay different gas prices since it hits one person harder?